BELLEVUE, Wash., Jan. 19, 2026 — The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a response brief to voice their opposition to the Government’s motion for summary judgment in Jensen v. ATF.
The case, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, challenges the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act registration scheme. Since 1934, the NFA required anyone who wished to purchase a silencer, short-barrelled firearm or “Any Other Weapon” (AOW) to pay a $200 tax and register the firearm with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Through the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill last year, however, the tax on these arms was eliminated effective Jan. 1, but the registration requirement was left in place. The lawsuit seeks to completely remove the affected arms from the NFA, eliminating the remaining registration requirements.
“The government has done their best to concoct novel justifications for their tax law that now is without a tax,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Of course, none of them are persuasive. Neither the government’s attempt to borrow taxation authority from other taxes levied on other people for other purposes, nor their newly trotted-out commerce clause argument can save the doomed elements of NFA. Today’s brief explains in great detail precisely why.”
Plaintiffs in the SAF-supported case are the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Texas Rifle Association, Hot Shots Custom and three individuals.
“This is the second case SAF has filed challenging this unconstitutional registration scheme because we fully believe this is the best opportunity in a generation to eliminate major portions of the NFA since its inception,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “With the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill, the government doesn’t have a leg to stand on since this law can’t be a tax without a tax. We look forward to continuing to fight this unconstitutional law in court and are optimistic we can fully restore the Second Amendment rights of citizens across the country.”
For more information visit SAF.org.
Of course, none of them are persuasive. Neither the government’s attempt to borrow taxation authority from other taxes levied on other people for other purposes, nor their newly trotted-out commerce clause argument can save the doomed elements of NFA. Today’s brief explains in great detail precisely why.
